First, Christians have done miracles but the evidence of them is not accepted...quite different form them not being done.
When have they done them? What sorces conferm this? If a miracle is done, and the evidence is not accepted - there might be a good reasion for this. Perhaps, there is no evidence, or the "evidence" is in fact, hearsay, rumors, speculaton. To date, no one has ever done any "miracle" or anything that can not be explained by sceince, 1 millon dolars from James Randy Education center is still up for grabs. Yet no one, not one, has done anything under control. If "miracles" are being done, they are equal to magic in our ablity or inablity to test them, or even be sure they occured.
I am not convinced that if you refer to the raw power of each, that is, in physical terms whether one is electrial power and the other mechanical, that there is a difference but this is waaaay past my pay scale.
I'm not sure what pay scale has to do with anything. But if we can observe and/or test someone who can perform any super human, magical, supernatural, then we could know what the power was, unles we could not test the power itself. Yet, so far, again, no one has ever come forward with the ablitys to perform on demand, and nothing other then execuses are offered to why. If such a person did perform, we would see results we are told, by you Ted, that we can not test - so how can we know if it is "faith" or "magic" that is making such things happen? The answer would be, we can not.
I am skiping the biblical verses due to my repeated objection to Ted using them, they provide me no way to forward the augment, nor do they provide him a way to do so, we have to in essance, GRANT his premices without any reasion to do so. We shoud not, but for sake of the flow of this loose debate, I'll just alow Ted to say that magic is evil, I do not think this is revelent, but we will see.
My problem here is that this hints a various ways of using magic but it does not tell us the power source or management. (I have personal ideas about this but I'll hold them in abeyance as just that, unworthy of this forum.)
Even the bible does not tell you how to test the spirts, it simply tells you to do it, how could you hope to test them, what methods, what meens? If they can lie they will lie, if they can use magic to make something happen, they would. How would you know they are good or evil? Even telling you they are from Jesus meens nothing, for again, they could be lying to you. There simply is no way explained in the biblical sorce itself.
You have zero way to know if something is magic, or if it is not. You are not told anything even in the holy document you use to tell us that such things exist. Unlike science, were we ARE told how to observe and test things, in fact where we can test and observe things, your relgion hopes to hide behind the idea that you will simply belive that it is right, and not ask it any critical questions like "How do I test a spirt if the supernatural is untestable?" and, it seems you do not question the text.
You have plenty of your own personal ideas, your whole augment is filled with nothing BUT your own personal ideas. Mine, on the other hand, utalises logic and agreed upon terms, reaches out to ask critical questions. I am simply not convinced that faith is any better then magic, and you have yet to convince me of it, and I suspect the readers will also not be convinced.
Even if we grant your premices, and it seems we must simply for sake of augument to take place, we see revealed no way to deside the matter. Faith and magic - one is good, perhaps, one is bad, perhaps. We have no way to test it. We have no evedance of eather. We have nothing but speculation, hearsay, or belifes. They are one in the same, even using your own ideas Ted.
A side point being made here, as such I have nothing to say on this matter, other than to again question how Ted knows his views of the scriptures are the correct ones.
Is there full agreement in the world of advanced physics?
For the most part, yes. Any point where there are disagrements we have ways to resolve them with the methods of science. You have no method to offer us to do the same for your system Ted.
Or in Math?
Yes. There are only a handful of things you could point out to be even close to disagrements there.
Have you ever heard two biologists arguing evolutionary basics.
No I have not. Even if they did or do, they can resolve there augument with data, with the methods of science, with pier review.
it a viscious world out there, I tell you!!!
It is, but that does not show how we can know what to think in regards to what Chrstans say is true in the verous demonations they have, unlike the examples you provid, there ARE ways to resolve the augments, and in fact, there ARE clear cut examples in all of the above of aggrement and terms and methods and fact.
The point is that at the top level, someone disagrees with every expert
Sure. And when we have disagrment we fall back on the evednace, not what we think, or feel to be true, but what we can know, and when we can not know, or be sure, we admit this. When a christan is unsure, they can have faith that they are right, even though they may be wrong. Someone who does magic has the same resorce to fall on, faith that there magic is real, rather then trick or illusion or personal delusion of reality.
I don't know how many scientists claim they believe by faith in their understanding of the evidence but the more honest of them do and so do I.
They have nothing to give faith in. Evedance once had, by your own ideas dismantals the nead for faith.
I have faith in my views because as yet they are the most satisfying explanation of reality that I can see,
It feels good so to you it is true. But this is not how we deside what is really real. Feelings are not relevent to objecifyed data. I might not like that my brain is wired to be dyslex, but this is fact. I could pretend it was not and be much happer, perhaps - but that is all it is, pretend. Feelings are just not relevent to the matter.
especially because it takes in an understanding of the spiritual world that I can't ignore.
Unforantly for all of those reading, no one could posbilty understand it any better now then we did before. What is a spirt? How do we identify the evil ones? What is an angel? Can they really make themselfs look human, if so how can we dectect it? What is faith? What is magic? None of these questions have been answered in any way that makes sence to the skeptic, to the outsider, to the person that is not Ted.
What would the reward be? If the reward itself is observable then one has empirical evidence, thus destroying faith. Once someone has crossed the threshold of death into eternal life, then one has apple evidence thus destroying faith utterly, what scripture references would show that faith is no longer required once one enters the eternal realm?
Exactly. First we had our time of ingenuous innocence and free will, pre-earth.
I've never heard of "pre-earth" I'll assume that it is one more teaching that Ted holds that meny christans do not. As I never heard a word about it in my 24 years of being a christan. But... I do not think this is relevent to the debate at hand.
Then we have our time on earth as a time of faith. Then we have our time after resurrection, in the new reality. 1 Peter 1:9 Receiving the end / goal of your faith, even the salvation of your souls. Romans 8:24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?
How does any of this help to seprate faith and magic? Worse yet, I do not think it even addresses my question that I asked. I simply do not understand what Ted's point is.
Once you are in the eternal relm do you require faith? Yes or no?
(side issue, but still, no idea what the answer is to my question)
Now in Matthew 17:18 Jesus was also telling us of the use of faith as a power in the world. Magic is seen as a power also and, as power, usually a demonic power.
"Usually" when is it used as a non-demonic power? Is there any way to know when something is magic, and when something is a miracle event?
Thanks for pointing our my weasle word, 'ususally,' trying to be pc instead of stating my case proudly!
So, all wickans, all magic and magiz and magiks (etc) users are evil or just using something evil? I personaly do not view such people to be doing anything other then performing the belifes they have grown up with, or desided to belive in for whatever reasion. Doing an illusion trick is not evil, and magic no matter what letters you add or take from it, is nothing more then a trick, there is no magic - none at all.
Ted, can you prove that Magic is evil without preasuming the Bible is true?
Ted, can you show us that Magic is evil without quoting more Bible at us?
One of the strongest contests between magic and faith is found in the story of Moses against the pharoah's magicians who could duplicate part of HIS faith based miracles but were always bested and finally admitted defeat: Ex 8:19 Then the magicians said unto Pharaoh, This is the finger of God."
There is also the great read about Elijah facing off with the Ba'als: 1 Kings 18.
Ted wins my side for me in this statment that I've bolded:
Neither of these two stories tells us of the difference between the faith of HIS servants and the magic but one is hated an the other brings eternal life.
And, so we cant tell the difernace beween the two!
Thank you Ted for winning my augment for me.
Why would we believe him? How do we know it was not magic? How can we know the source of the power? Science, could have him do it again, so we could study it, of course if it is the past we could not be sure of it, perhaps only that it happened, as you said, but we would know nothing else about it. All we have is Jesus's word that said power came from God. How do we know Jesus is not lying? A miracle, even if it does occur, cannot prove that Jesus is being honest. What better trickery then for the real devil to make a false religion to throw everyone off track from the real religion, whatever it might be.
Why would we believe him? You can't believe HIM without the prior calling of GOD to you to repent and be saved.
You can not belive in God without God desideing you will belive in God. So God can take away (if there is such a thing) free will. However, this does not address the question, how do we know the power to change my or anyone else's brain is from God in the first place? Perhaps it is evil that has this power, how can you know the diferance if it has control of your brain?
Perhaps it is evil that is calling you to be saved, by evil, and the real God is trying to convince you that Jesus is not the real God.... who knows!
What can I say? In the war between satan and GOD, would GOD Almighty allow the core essence of HIS work, the death of HIS son and the ressurrection to be preempted by satan? Unlikely... The best satan can do is set up a copy cat to what he knows GOD is going to do and have it in place first, which we know he has done. Then he can do the miracles that Jesus warned us about: Matthew 24:24 For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect--if that were possible. for instance, which verse seems to hint that our staying faithful in the face of satan's miracles is HIS work, not ours.
Or Satan is the real God who hapened upon the scene to late. And now must convince people that Jesus is not the real God. OR some other deitys are betting on the outcome, or this or that. Its all speculation. Nothing more. It is very much like magic in fact.
If we can't study the evidence from a scientific attitude of the necessity of replication, evidence can still provide us with assurances. The evidence for the distinction between magic and faith and the understanding of whether the miracle worker is using magic or faith is found in two things: the scripture message, ie does their message equal the message found in the gospel? and it is found in the indwelling Holy Spirit promised to every believer.
So if I use magic and make it match the gospal you will have no way to afferm that it is not magic other then your "indwelling" of the "Holy Spirt" - in otherwords you will eather say I have done magic based upon your own "gut" (holy spirt) or you will say it was really faith.
However, get enough Christans together and have them write on paper what they think - and find that there is no agreement, then the question is WHO is right? Who really has the Holy Spirt? We can not know. There is no way to test such an idea. None. Zero. Christans can not agree. It is magical thinking.
To a non-believer this is foolishness, but to the believer it is saving faith.
Hey, time for me to quote the bible myself!
But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
I know, tounge in cheek again.
I contend that the scientist abuses his prerogative to lay claim over supernatural phenomena since
1. he has never nor can ever prove anything about spiritual things at all and
2. that this lack of proof does not mean lack of reality to spiritual things but a lack in the tools science uses; the mental discernment and evaluation of physical things. The scientist has not yet proven his tools are workable for the discernment of spiritual things.
Indeed, science is constrained by what abilityâ€™s we have now, and we can only observe what is observable, the claim that supernatualistic realms exist has zero proof to offer at all. We are told it exists, and told we cannot observe it empirically, test it at all, that we can only believe that it is so. The same is true of magical ideas and realms.
Shocking, have I won a second point? This is the whole thrust of my side of the augment that the two things are identical objectivly speaking.
1 Corinthians 2:15 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. How can a blind person prove the sighted cannot see?
How can a blind person prove the sighted cannot see - let me answer this question, first I must address again the use of scripture being unjustified as yet, we do not know what the words mean, or that Ted's idea of how they are meant to be used is correct. Now, to the question, the blind person cannot prove that sighted cannot see because then the sighted people would be blind. Thus, the question is nonsensical, however, I did want to answer it by explaining that it is not a properly formatted question.
I contend that the question is not nonsensical but ony that the answer is impossible, that is: the blind person cannot prove that sighted cannot see!
An impossible answer is a nonsensical and illformed question, so this is moot.
As an analogy that because the non-believer cannot discern spiritual things, they cannot say those spiritual things can't be seen by anyone, whether they are not there or whatever...not seeing cannot speak to what others claim to see...it is impossible for them to know, they are blind.
This is all based on your idea of the Holy Book that you think is correct. We have still two major objections that would dismiss this as being true:
1: You have not shown us that this Holy Book is true.
2: You have not shown us that your idea of what this Holy Book says is the correct idea.
However, even setting aside that as an issue, we still have the issue that the whole analogy is based on an imposible to answer question, making it one large non starter. If one asks a question they know can not be answered, then presents an anoligy based on that one has nothing more then a constuct based upon non-logic from start to finnish. If you would not accept me doing the same to prove a point I wish to make, do not expect me to do that for you. I serously do not think you would alow me to do this and/or accept an augment if I pressed it to you in this framing.
[ASIDE: In Matt 17:18-20 Jesus was also telling us of the use of faith as a power in the world. Magic is also a power and (sometimes) a demonic power. There seems to be a possibility that power to effect the world at a distance is somewhat readily available to spiritual beings as many religions attest.
If so I might consider that if power is freely available to anyone, the difference must be in who is wielding the power: mountain moving by a saint is faith but by a demon is magic: Matthew 24:24 can be interprreted to mean the deceit is in the person, not the magic but perhaps that is moot. I do shrug though because this is somewhat uncharted territory for me.
And how do we tell the difference between a saint and a demon? If both can move the mountain, we can observe this to be true. If we are not allowed via science to look at the "how" or the power behind this ability, due to its supernatural nature, then other than the "word" of the person doing the moving of said mountain, how can we know anything about the source of said power, we cannot decide what one is faith, and what one is magic.
Again, I can only point you to the gospel message as the loadstone for truth, the great arbitrator of truth and to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, (which alas, can also be and is often counterfeit by satan)
So if this is correct... satan can mimic and/or counterfeit an indewlling of a person telling them that things are true or false, and leading them to think that a spirt that they are trying to say is good or evil is not evil even if it is, and so on. Now you have added a secondary layer of issues for the skeptic.
Not only can we the observer no longer know if someone is performing magic or using faith, but now the christan who can claim all they want that they KNOW (due to holy spirit) that said person is NOT using faith - but the whole time even THEY can not be sure that they have the REAL holy spirt inside them!
(skiping over more quotes from scripture they do not add to the debate at hand, nor do I have any thing more to say on them)
Except by our faith we will be kept free from illusion...
I contend that your faith is the illusion that is keeping you from freedom of thought, of ablity to analis, to ask the questions I am asking. Perhaps it is the one who has faith who is "blind" as you say. You THINK that you are keeped from illusion, but how can you know this when you can not analise it? You can only belive that it is true - you can never know it is true.
Of course, all tests we have tried to do on magical claims and faith claims have failed to produce results, we get the same results we would expect from chance and chance alone, but, as Ted says, we just cannot look at faith or magic with science. And what does that leave us with? Two claims that we can never observe, test, understand, or be sure of. We have two things that may or may not be able to move mountains, two unverified and unverifiable claims that offer no proof of there working at all.
I suggest that world wide miracles of mountain moving portent will soon (or if not soon, then some day) be seen with no doubt as to the miraculous quality of them as miracles such that only those protected by GOD will not bow before the magician as to a god.
I will never bow down to anyone unless phyiscaly forced to do so. I will never submit to anyone - I will fight to the last breath in my body and brain and ablity. I will not bow to your god, or magic men (or women) or anyone else. I am my own person. I serve no one, I am free. The sudden occurance of mountan moving of people if that ever did happen, and I do not think it ever
will, would meen nothing - I would if not personaly study, fund those who want to study it, I would assume nothing about the event without futher data.
How would the amount of movement show who is right? Satan might send out millons of demons looking like humans and claiming to be christans to move mountans Who knows. With your system there would be zero way to deside what is going on. With the system I use there would be, if there WAS such a thing as magic we could test it, we could learn about it, simulary if faith was a thing that could do things - yet you insist that we can not test this, we can only know via a very vague system, and even then we might be fooled by evil spirts indweeling inside of us.
I simply do not belive in such things, there is no proof they exist, but if they did, as Ted sugests, we could not know the diferance beween evil and good. Magic and faith. We would only have an inner idea - and that inner idea itself might be lying to us if it is an evil spirt. There would simply be zero way to know, magic and faith would still be one and the same.
So, unless Ted can produce a new definition of faith not utilizing scriptures as reference to show how it is any better and/or different then magic I think we must conclude from both his own definitions and logic and my opening augment, that faith and magic are equal in the sense that I have augured, mainly: faith is nothing more than magic as far as useable results produced.
I contend that I have shown clearly from the only reference available to us on this topic of faith vrs magic, the Bible,
Not the only referance....
(no reference on the source and quality of magical demonic power being offered), that though the result of the use of devlish magic and the saint's miracles, (Rev 11:5-7) might be the same, that the miracles of faith can swallow up the results of magic as they are lesser and the reason for the miracle is to encourage faith in GOD while the reason for the magic is deceit, to lead the viewer from GOD, and that faith is the pe+rogative of GODly power and while the word miracle is applied to satanic power, the connotation of faith is conspicuously absent.
Therefore, although the absence of an understanding of the nature of the power that is used by faith or in demonic magic is equal, the rest of my study showing decisive differences between faith and magic must hold and faith and magic are not equal.
You have a possible way to show what one has more power, if the faith produced tricks (no idea what else to call them) of ... making a snake, say - can always be shown to "eat" the magic produced snake - then you have now an objecive way to TEST this... but before you said there was no way to test the difernace, now there seems to be a way! Now, from the two storys in the bible you outlined before, we could extraplate that this might be the case. So, it would be time to put it to the test - lets get someone who can by faith do (X) and someone else who says by magic they can do the same (X) then see if person 1's (X) will "eat" the second person's (X).
If you could do this, repeatably, you would now have an objective data sorce, (And a millon dollars for proving something exists beound science) but- I do not think you will find even one person who can actualy do (X) be it by faith or by magic, no one will alow themselfs to be tested, not now. Now in the past - who knows, who can say, it is a writen account of what someone belived happen, that is all I can say objectivly on the matter.
Your idea is of merrit, but without the fleshing out of it that would be nessary for it to be an actual test, it is nothing more then an idea. And all of it, again - is based on us accepting your view of the storys as the corect view. When it might not in fact be correct.
Yet, I score you postive here, you have a glimer of a possible test - a way to show us that one is greater then the other, thus, a way that we could objectivly know the difernce between the two! If only this could be tested.... but - you have said too offen that it cannot be tested, and if you now are wanting to say it could be tested, then simply show us the test and the results, and you will not only win this minor debate, but one millon bucks, and world wide attention to your faith, ideas, and so on.
But, I do not think you can do this, I do not think you will do this, and I do not think that such a thing is possible. I could be wrong, it is your burdan to show me that I am. To show us all.
As for, faith is nothing more than magic as far as useable results produced, I contend that no useable result (by the lack of science to even test the hypothesis), do not prove equality any more than they prove inequality...nothing in this case can ony prove nothing.
If they prove nothing, then that meens that nothing is yet proven. We can not test eather side (or we could use science to deside this matter) you sugest a possible way for us to deside, then here say that we can not in fact test it after all, and that we can't test it for you proves nothing, but it proves everything- if we can't test (X) and (Y) we must be skeptical about both, both are equal in this sence, for both can not be known. Futher, I think we have seen that using your system adds more issues then using the system of science would, and we are appernly, again, not alowed to do that. So we are should be skepical.
Now, my rebutal is done. Ted will have the final rebutal and I offered him a closing statment but he has declined to make one. So, the debate will end with Ted's rebutals of my augments above - I'm not sure if he will rebutal my closing statment, but - we have not stuck to the rules of formal debate, so I have no idea!
This has been a very strange debate for me, more then once I found myself wanting to point out the logical fallacys that were made, to insist that Ted give us proof of what he is saying. My goal here can not be to deconvert Ted, no - my goal is not even to convince Ted that I am right, although that would be wonderous to do - no my goal in this debate is to sharpen Ted. I will here point towards scirpture since Ted is found of it, "one sword shapens the other" we can learn from other people. Tossing scripture at someone will not stick.
I think Ted does a huge disfavor to himself by doing this, rather then by engaging us directly. It was when Ted did not use scripture that I was most engaged in what his ideas were, and why he thought those ideas, for me, I'd perfer he had used more resroces and reasions why his ideas are what they are, but when Ted was Ted is when I was most put to thinking - when Ted was tossing scripture, I was very disengaged, and unimpressed, more of the same, "nothing new under the sun" I want Ted to think more - use Christan diconarys for a resorce, use commentary made in Bibles, use other sorces for your side of the debate. Take the time to learn logic and how it is used, take the time to learn more about debate. Read other things outside of the bible.
One thing that I think would help Ted, and perhaps others is to think of it this way:
Pretend that I am a missonary of (X) relgion you have never before known of, and I'm at your door. What would I have to say, or do, or not say or do, what evedance would I have to have, what would it take for you to see that I held the truth?
Answer that question to yourself honestly, then see if you can take that answer and use it for your own faith and relgion. For the ones who say "nothing" then, I can not help you expand outside your ideas, your faith has traped you, you might be in the wrong one, but you will never see it or know it. For those who answer my thought experment that nothing anyone would say would convice you that they are right (because you belvie you can not be wrong) - you are the ones who I most pitty. I have nothing to offer such a person. Yet, I know people can change - and so, perhaps you are not that person who says "nothing" but rather wants to expand your ablity to think, to reasion. Be of faith if you must, belive in a God or more then one if you must, but do so with critical thinking, learn more about your relgion, its histroy, other teachings, become smarter about it. Be a deeper person.
To learn more... to know more... that is the real magic!
... Or maybe its faith!
Thank you for your time to read this. Thanks to Ted for doing a debate, I hope to see him do others latter on. And I do hope he will rely less on quotes from the bible, and more on other sorces and his own thoughts. Peace and love to you and yours.